Meta is Bad
Fantastic example of why meta is awful:
So much
-Asking "What is the evidence?"
-Saying "There is lots of evidence."
-Ad hominem.
-Arguing about whether it's ad hominem.
-Argument from authority.
-Talking about the close-mindedness of each other.
-Asking to accept the "scientific facts".
-Talking about how one side or other doesn't have fair coverage, or is censored (which is a fair topic in itself, but I was hoping to hear arguments about the topic).
-Disagreeing about whether something is 'controversial' or not. That's so dumb -- if your interlocutor disagrees, it's controversial!
-Talking about definitions (e.g. of 'evidence') -- actually, it was just suggesting that the definition might be different (for no reason, and then not explaining why or what the difference is).
-Accusing the interlocutor of argument from emotion.
-Suggesting the interlocutor read a book to learn about the evidence, instead of just explaining what the evidence is.
-Accusing interlocutor of living in an echo chamber and not knowing the other side's arguments (after the interlocutor specifically asked for evidence/arguments. So instead of giving them, he said some ad hominem meta).
...Instead of arguing in a serious way about how DNA is evidence for evolution, or other content-related stuff.
Notice how, despite having the right conclusions, Richard Dawkins engages in far more meta than Wendy Wright. Most of the things listed in the bullet-points above were Dawkins. She mostly only did meta when he started it.
Click to viewSo much
-Asking "What is the evidence?"
-Saying "There is lots of evidence."
-Ad hominem.
-Arguing about whether it's ad hominem.
-Argument from authority.
-Talking about the close-mindedness of each other.
-Asking to accept the "scientific facts".
-Talking about how one side or other doesn't have fair coverage, or is censored (which is a fair topic in itself, but I was hoping to hear arguments about the topic).
-Disagreeing about whether something is 'controversial' or not. That's so dumb -- if your interlocutor disagrees, it's controversial!
-Talking about definitions (e.g. of 'evidence') -- actually, it was just suggesting that the definition might be different (for no reason, and then not explaining why or what the difference is).
-Accusing the interlocutor of argument from emotion.
-Suggesting the interlocutor read a book to learn about the evidence, instead of just explaining what the evidence is.
-Accusing interlocutor of living in an echo chamber and not knowing the other side's arguments (after the interlocutor specifically asked for evidence/arguments. So instead of giving them, he said some ad hominem meta).
...Instead of arguing in a serious way about how DNA is evidence for evolution, or other content-related stuff.
Notice how, despite having the right conclusions, Richard Dawkins engages in far more meta than Wendy Wright. Most of the things listed in the bullet-points above were Dawkins. She mostly only did meta when he started it.